Saker rant: “Gun control” should only mean “hitting your target”

As is so often the case, there is crazy shit happening in the US of A. Yesterday I just took a quick look at the RT news feed and I saw this:

3 random shootings in 2 days

Following the shooting in Charleston, some creep shot another 7 people in West Philly and some other creep shot another 10 in Detroit.

I already know what is going to happen next: there will be new appeals to enact more “gun control” laws and this is what I my rant is about today: the constant efforts by some to pass more and more restrictions on the ownership of guns. This makes absolutely no sense at all, and here is why:

Practical reasons:

1) Any legislation to to curb the ownership of firearms will only affect those who obey laws to begin with. Criminals and crazies don’t give a damn. If anything, the correlation between the legal ownership of firearms and crime is a negative one.

2) The actual crime rates amongst those who has a “concealed carry license” in the United States is actually less than amongst teachers, law enforcement officers and even clergymen. Gun carriers (those with a CCL) are the single most law abiding social group.

3) 9 our of 10 cases when a gun is used to stop/prevent a crime not a single shot is fired – just the display of the firearm is enough in 90% of the cases.

Philosophical reasons:

1) The right to bear arms has always been considered the privilege of the free and law abiding citizen. It is also the cultural role of the father of the family: to stand in defense of his family. To deny such a right is a sign of distrust which I personally find deeply offensive.

2) Firearms are very much part of the social culture of the USA. And, no, that does not make the USA a crazy “Far West” as some try to picture it. You all have heard the expression “as American as motherhood and apple pie”. In reality neither motherhood nor apple pies are particularly American, but firearms most definitely are, in the very best sense of the word. To ban guns is most definitely un-American.

3) The only person who is qualified to make the judgment about whether you need or don’t need to own or carry a firearm is the one who knows all your circumstances: yourself. I don’t want to have some bureaucrat making that judgment call for me.

Common sense reasons:

1) The “gun control” movement is misguided because it offers those who cannot think critically an easy “solution” by fixating their anguish on an object: the gun. This is exactly the same fallacy as the one underlying the war on drugs: ban the drugs and you will eliminate drug addiction. In reality, of course, banning guns will not eliminate gun violence any more than banning drugs will stop addictive behavior. As Menken said “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong“.

2) The vast majority of gun control supporters have a true phobia of guns. “Phobia” in the double sense of “fear” and “hatred”. They are the ones who will scream “what?! a GUN in my house!!!!!” forgetting that a gun is a tool, just like any other tool. By itself, it is neither good, nor bad, and it is most definitely not dangerous in the least. I have yet to meet a single gun control supporter who would understand even the basic stuff about guns. Ignorance breeds fear and this is especially true for gun control people. Educating people about guns in the obvious solution.

3) Politicians are ruthlessly manipulating the gun control people. Think of it, if “banning guns” is the solution, then politicians can do that with the stroke of a pen. Finding real solutions to the problems of violence is exceedingly complicated and would costs a lot of money. And while the notion of “the people” rising up against “the government” is silly NRA propaganda to support the right to bear arms (1000 gun toting civilians can easily be defeated by 30 well trained military soldiers), it is true that the citizen who lets himself be disarmed has become psychologically subservient and, basically, “broken”. Politicians want to ban guns just for the same reasons they want to ban pot: it gives them power over the people.

Guns, cars and big dogs: should be treated the same way

Yes, guns are potentially dangerous, and so are cars and big dogs. And this is why I personally believe that they should be regulated the same way.

1) carrying a gun, driving a car and owning a big dog should not be a right, but a privilege granted to anybody passing a basic proficiency test and getting a license to drive, carry a gun or own a large dog. For cars, a driver’s license. For dogs, a basic obedience course for the owner and dog together (for each dog). For guns, a basic laws and safety course. Most US states already have such laws for guns and cars but, alas, not for dogs (why?).

2) carrying a gun, driving a car and owning a big dog ought to be conditional on meeting a short list of specific criteria: physical and mental. In the case of guns, no criminal record, no substance abuse, no history of family violence, not mental issues, etc. In the case of dogs: no prior record of attacks by the owner’s dogs, the physical capacity to restrain your dog. Most US states already have such laws for guns and cars but alas, not for dogs (why?).

3) a gun, car or dog owner ought to be legally held liable under both criminal and civil law for any events resulting from his/her ownership of a car, dog or gun. Most US states already have such laws for guns and cars but, alas, not for dogs (why?).

What about accidents?

What about them?! They happen. So? If you think that guns are accident prone, don’t get one! I don’t think that, so leave me alone. It’s not like third party bystanders often get hurt in gun accidents (it is usually the gun owner).

What about kids?

That is a non-issue. Kids should not drive a car, they should not be left with a big dog unsupervised and they should not have access to firearms. It is already illegal in many states to keep firearms accessible for kids in many states and buying a small gun safe is both effective a cheap.

The real issue: human nature and stupidity

The problem is not guns, dogs or cars. The problem is human nature and stupidity. Some humans are violent by nature, others have an addictive personality. Unless you live on a desert island, you have to accept that. Not far from where I live I regularly see a guy walking FOUR huge Rottweilers (all leashed) together and one quick look at his expression tells me that he has issues: he walks around with this “nobody fucks with me!” expression which must have been fashionable with cavemen. He probably cannot get a car or gun license (too many DUIs?), but four huge Rottweillers – no problem. This is crazy! I also regularly see the local Neanderthals drive is huge oversized pickup trucks, some even add a pair of “truck nutz” to their wannabe-tank to look even more macho. Do you really believe that these fine gentlemen require a handgun to hurt themselves or others?!

As for accident, they will happen with any tools. I am quite sure that more accident happen with nails, ladders and electrical equipment than with guns. You want to ban it all?

Full disclosure: I am preaching for my own parish

I own 2 cars, 4 dogs (including two Shepherds: a German and Belgian Groenendael) and 3 firearms (the three shown on featured image, except for my biggest on is a 9mm and my small one is without a laser). I have a perfect driving record (not even a speeding ticket!), a completely virgin rap-sheet and *voluntarily* trained my German Shepherd for obedience (and tracking) with a local specialized dog-training center. Since I shown myself to be responsible with my cars, dogs and guns I don’t see why the fact that some creep hundreds of miles away form where I live decided to go on a shooting-spree should affect my right to own and carry a firearms any more than a car pileup on a highway should deny me the right to drive or the fact that there are roving dogs attacks all over Florida (which are rarely reported) should prevent me from walking my dogs.

Florida “Neanderthals” (as Hiaasen called them)

Speaking of Florida: the local rednecks have acted so stupidly with the friggin Pitbulls that now dogs are banned almost everywhere, even on beaches, restaurants or stores. In Europe I could go shopping with my dog, but not here. The worst kind of big dog owner is the macho testosterone poisoned idiot who does not put is Pitbull on a leash “kuz I am a real man and I got him under control!” and who, of course, does not control him at all. This is the same guy who will insist that “Pitbulls are great dogs, especially with kids”. I always want to ask him if he got a Pitbull because of their stunning looks or legendary intelligence… Those folks should be given guns for free in the hope that the accidentally shoot themselves :-)

I wish there was a law banning these Neanderthals, but the reality is that they are also just an expression of the fallen human nature and no law will make them disappear anytime soon.

Just please don’t judge all Floridians by these creatures and don’t restrict the freedoms of all because of the inevitable pathologies of the few.

The US of A: not perfect by any means, but not all bad either

Look, I will be the first one to say that the USA have a lot of major problems and you will never hear me say that the US society is an example to be emulated. But there are some unique and truly precious things in this country which ought to be if not admired, than at least respected. The first two which come to my mind are the First and Second Amendments. Actually the entire Bill of Rights is, I believe, a remarkable document. This is also why the US government is clearly trying to indirectly dismantle the Bill of Rights along with all the other civil (and even human rights!) of the people living in the USA under all sorts of completely fallacious pretexts: terrorism, addiction, pedophilia, mass shootings, etc. And they always promise safety in exchange. Even though I am a “legal alien” and not a US citizen, I fully agree with Franklin’s words that “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety“. This principle is, I believe, not just for the USA but it is universally true. This is why I firmly believe that the right to own and carry a firearm ought to be a civil right in any society.

The Saker

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

197 Comments

I’ve been on this site since November 2013., and I virtually never got disappointed by your analyses. I mean, sometimes I don’t agree with you (like on religions based on Judaism), but I am still here because you set a certain standard.

This is you first text ever where I am actually shocked with what you are saying. I think you’ve been in the US for too long, man! Maybe you should in reality move to Iceland or some similar place. Some peaceful place. Where they don’t carry guns. Because it is NOT normal!!!

I mean, I know exactly what I am saying. I still remember the 1990’s in Serbia. All of a sudden everybody got guns! And it was crazy. I mean going to school was dangerous. Going anywhere was dangerous because every idiot had a gun !

I’ve owned several firearms in my life and I never used them for anything other than target shooting. It’s genuinely fun and gives your arms a workout. Living in a good or bad country has nothing to do with whether something should be legal or illegal.

Besides that, gun-control isn’t something you can just switch on and off like a light switch. Countries (like the US) that gave people the right to own firearms CENTURIES AGO can’t do an about face and just ban them, because people in our country like guns and will acquire them by any means necessary.

Not to mention the historical bias against gun-laws that the US share. The British tried to confiscate Rebel guns during the revolution. Former slave owners did their best to make sure former slaves couldn’t get them. The same went for Japanese during WWII.

America has had a bad history with trying to legislate gun laws, because it’s never about public safety but instead, about power and subjugation…At least, historically.

Bans didn’t work with prohibition, they didn’t work with abortion, they didn’t work with drugs, and they won’t work with guns.

Not even close to being true. Australia is a prime example of a country with over a century of the right of citizens to bear firearms, and then after a horrific shooting incident, took steps to regulate guns, and has not had a mass shooting since. This was after one every year for over a decade. Gun control does not mean gun confiscation. It means having smart laws and regulations. It means ensuring that those who choose to have guns have had the proper training in the care and safety of a weapon. It means those who have proven to be a danger to those around them have to go through extra precautions before getting the right to have a weapon, and if they prove to be irresponsible or a danger to the community, be denied a weapon.

Thank you for saying this, I very much agree. When we had more honest debate on television news I remember a sheriff of police saying how much harder his job becomes in a community where the regulations to own firearms are relaxed. The situation in the United States is absolutely terrifying now because of the proliferation of all kinds of weapons. Civil unrest in this country as in the examples used by Saker himself can only multiply the casualties among the innocent, and I am horrified that he would make this a cause celébre as the heat of summer reaches its intensity.

Guns aren’t made for target practice; they are made to inflict bodily harm. And they do so in the blink of an eye. It is hubris to imagine we are in total control every moment of the day. We see the harm unstable individuals can cause with these weapons. All the more reason to use the rule of law to protect the public.

The situation in the US may terrify you, but in my part of the US there are almost no gun laws. And we have an extremely low rate of crime and gun crime. No State license is required to own pistols, rifles, or shotguns. Firearm ownership and responsible use is part of our culture, and I challenge anyone to say there are significant social problems caused by it in my state. Virtually all my neighbors are armed.
Home invasions are rare here, for obvious reasons.
Almost every mass shooting in the USA has transpired in a “gun-free” zone.
A cursory study of European history reveals the right to bear arms is the mark of a free man.
Despots are always in favor of disarming the People. So are conquerors. If guns scare you, you don’t have to own one.
Saker is absolutely correct.

It high time you did educate people on this subject. I for one am really glad you did it. It shows independent thinking and reminds the rest of us that we should all reason out each issue rather than jump on ideological bandwagon.

Also, note, that on RT’s TV coverage they actually did criticize Obama and the US media of trying to turn the Church shootings into a gun-control excuse and trying to deflect from the racial aspect of it. For the first time RT actually highlighted that the gun-control campaigners were misusing this shooting. If RT wants to win mindshare in the US, they’re not going to do that by alienating gun-owners and Libertarians (based on their recent TV coverage they might have finally understood that).

thanks..
when I get crappy reactions like that I tend to get 3Ded: discouraged, disgusted and depressed.
I am happy that the rest of the thread looks better.
thanks for being there :-)
hugs and cheers!
The Saker

Would love to see, in any discussion of Gun Control in the US, an acknowledgement that the problems of violence from the use of firearms are also intimately connected with the rampant use of excessive force by those “authorized” to have them; something which is clearly endemic, if not epidemic, and embedded in the very philosophy behind “policing” in the United
States.

Would rather see that everyone be required to be armed at all times, arms to be provided by the state, traning to be provided, than rely on the possible presence of a limited state sanctioned “peace officer” that is as much focused on respect for his ego as he is on safety and protection of the public to assure our safety and security. AT least then everyone has some minimal degree of parity.

Threats of violence to us exist all the time eveywhere, so we are told. The only adequate comprehensive solution that covers everyone is to arm everyone so they can protect themselves and their neighbors from violence and death from firearms, which in todays world here in the US is just a likely to come to you from an “officer of the law”.

There is no strategy that is going to “protect” everyone from or prevent violent attacks from all sources across the board. More of us are killed by our police here than are killed by random shootings by crazies or even “terrorism”.

We could outlaw the use or carrying of firearms in public (not private ownership) by everyone even law enforcement but nobody here is going to opt that way.

Ok, Saker, I really respect you and love this site and community, but if I disagree I must say so. You must respect that.
I think your arguments are just self-serving exuses for a man who wants to have a gun. Not needs but wants.
You talk about cars, big dogs and guns. The common feature you identify in those objects is that they are dangerous. Pretty artificial similarity. If you ask someone to name an object similar to car, I assure you it would not be big dog. People judge similarities between things based largely on their purpose. What is the main purpose of cars? They get you from A to B. What is the purpose of a big dog? Depends on the dog and the owner, but it is mostly for friendship, or protection, or both. What is the purpose of a gun? It is to shoot or threaten to shoot! What is intended to shoot will shoot. Someone will get killed. Animal or a human. Can you see the difference?
Many people on this planet including myself (definitely the vast majority of Russian people) consider guns not simply dangerous objects, but horrible objects. Things that kill. Society in which most people need or want to have guns is a horrible society. This is my opinion.

My only issue with what Saker wrote was dealing with 30 trained military men vs 1000 common men. The common men will always win especially if the fight is in their neighborhood. Saker do you truly believe 1000 common men each with a weapon could not wear down and defeat a small group of 30 military personnel? Like Saker said a gun is tool it cant do anything without someone using it. Its not the gun that creates crime. I also had very minor issue with the family history of violence precluding someone to own a gun. I think there is some type of religious saying about the sins of the father shouldn’t be that of the son or something along those lines. But I do understand the basics of the idea just don’t think one should receive a label because of ones family.

Do not kill people either.
It is the humans that use them, that is the reason for the deaths, sufferings and genocides.

We get so sick of the gun-supporters with their BS-slogan about “guns dont kill people, people do”. As if that is any excuse for having a loose gun policy.

Lets all get Sarin gass, anthrax storaged and some nuclear bombs in our houses.
After all, they dont kill people, it is the people who kill.

Number1 rule:
Do not give unstable people weapons. And reduce the risk of wrong people getting the chance of abusing/”using” the weapons.
Weapons are ment to kill or atleast damage.
Intimidation only works so far, untill it ends in a situation which is not reversable.

Switzerland has 8 million people
The US 320 million.
While I agree that the percentage of crazies in Switzerland is smaller, you cannot compare these countries directly. There is much less poverty in Switzerland, there is a civilized labor code, with unions and workers rights, there is universal health care, real unemployment benefits, etc. Switzerland has much less race issues, although that is changing, and a MUCH less violent police force. So the general climate is very different.
Violence in a society has MANY causes, not just the availability of guns.
Also, some parts of the US are much safer than some parts of Switzerland. Having lived in both countries, I can compare :-)

We don’t exactly have universal health care here in Switzerland. The law stipulates that everyone without exception should have health insurance (which is not cheap) from one of a fairly wide spectrum of private insurance companies. On the other hand, depending on one’s income, one can get subsidies from the state, ranging from a 10% to a 100% subsidy. Those with the lowest incomes are entitled to a 100% subsidy, i.e. their basic health insurance is paid in full by the state. Still, a number of families – mainly working-class and lower-middle class with several children do suffer hardship from having to pay insurance for each member of the family. Still, it admittedly is far from being as bad as in the USA.

This is not the empire’s war against Russia – it is the empire’s (the dictatorship of the worldwide oligarchical system, with it’s Capitalist enabler [or Socialisng Bank debts as required] enabler) war against the rest of us…people, of all geographies / countries.

You’re full right Saker. I’m horrified from the pure capitalistic predatory american civilization born in the blood but i understand your point. In my opinion obligatory and correct training for all possesers and a minimum age would be a great deal. College masskilling and stupid accident with child involved happen mostly in the USA. In Switzerland the arms are all registered, everyone who carry one became military training or has a hunter license. Very few have gun’s and rifle’s are locked at home, we cannot take it to a walk like a dog…

Hi Vierotchka you’re right. But you can buy ammo with no problem. I have no gun at home, i make social service instead of the military one. But one guy living with me has the passion for all type of guns and has a lot of stuff. All registered, of course. About the healt insurance issue: in my opinion all swiss have to refuse to pay it. We need one federal healt insurance on the model of the military one. But as you know social is only the pension sistem and any proposal to statalize the healtcare system was countered from the insurance lobby and the stupid folk voted against it.

True, one may get ammunition for handguns provided one has a licence to own a handgun, and buying ammunition goes through exactly the same rigorous vetting process via the police as for obtaining a gun. Getting ammunition for assault rifles is nigh on impossible, it is not the same ammunition as for handguns, whatever the caliber.

The health insurance question is not a simple one. I agree that there should be a “single payer” health insurance, but that would imply the loss of tens of thousands of jobs – the people working in all the different private insurance companies. What is needed is a price regulation, all private insurers having to conform to the same price that would be determined by the federal government and that would make insurance affordable by the majority of people. For those with low incomes, we have the state subsidies that can go from 10% to 100%, and that is a good thing.

Relax,
this is a perfect article indeed,
thank you Saker.
Some kind of Serbia can quite soon happen in USA…and then?
The bad guys will have their guns…when they knock out you door and rape your daughter what will you be thinking about??? Sorry my dear, I cannot help you, they have guns, I have to wait for police – of course they let me call first after they are done with you…..

I respectfully disagree with you. I pretty much agree with most of what Saker wrote in this article (few quibbles here and there, but overall his point is well reasoned, supported by the facts).

Your comparison to Serbia in the 1990s is an apples to oranges comparison. The culture on how to manage your guns the mindset is totally different in the United States. Serbia was subjected to war, destabilization and did not have the same mindset, system and laws you have in the US.

The most unsafe and violent parts of the US are those parts that have a gun ban, such as Chicago. Yet the number of violent deaths from illegal guns is phenomenonal in that city, neither are those neighborhoods safe (despite the gun ban).

Your reaction seems to based more on emotion that an analysis of the facts.

Another point that you make that I don’t believe is true is that “it’s not normal”. Quite the opposite, in most natural societies, each household was armed with that era’s equivalent of the “gun” that would be the bow and the sword. That included Vedic India, where training in the skills/art of war was mandatory for all castes, including, the so called “untouchables” such as my ancestors. The man of each household was responsible for the physical safety of his family; that was enforced by is possession of his long bow (forest dwellers and us so-called untouchables), Indo-aryan compound bow (members of the city states) or sword/dagger. The further away you were from the city state (even the immediate outskirts) the more you had to rely on yourself for protection.

The same applies for all othe natural societies, from the inuit of arctic to jungles of subsaharan Africa.

Yeah…Amen….we need our guns to protect ourselves from government agents…remember Bundy Ranch last year…it was fabulous…the old Bundy guy had all his rancher friends come over to his place for the next visit of those asshole gov agents and that time the agents didn’t shoot half his cows….just for fun.

My point was that multiple natural/normal societies since the dawn of man practiced the right to bear arms and the other points that Saker mentioned as well as myself. I simply pointed out Vedic culture and beliefs on this issue because you’ve expressed respect, familiarity and knowledge about that culture, and therefore I was using it as a point of reference.

As for Jainism, it is a tiny sect in the Hindu heterodoxy, many of its view are in direct contradiction to Vedic culture and the Laws of Manu. That doesn’t make them wrong, it simply means that are not representative of the values of the Vedic peoples nor the Vedic diaspora that spread as far as Swabia in present day Germany. I have no views regarding Jainism.

I am orthodox Christian due to the wisdom of a distant ancestor who saw the light in Jesus’s compassion that we were not untouchables and that God loves all. My large extended family honors that man every year, and I do admit that in my youth I was quite bitter that my community was seen as unworthy thru an accident of birth. Now, I have learned over time that Vedic culture did not condone caste oppresdion and that the caste system was not a fixed system but based on ones proclivities. It was only after the advent of Kushan invasion, the subsequent Kushan empire, then the Hephthalite invasion and finally the Gupta counterattack, the result decadence and resulting corruption of Indian culture that the caste system became stratified.

Given that realization I’ve grown much closer to my Hindu/Vedic brethren than I was in my youth. I have read what I can about the Hindu/Vedic faith and I have been stunned by the depth of its thinking.

In my country Sweden it is illegal to even own pepperspray, we have the highest amount of rape in Europe.

Which alternative would you rather pick? Your daughter was raped, and afterward she contacted you and you contacted the police and the big police men came over with their guns and wrote down some information and said maybe we will catch him.(80% cases they do not, and if they do the punishment is 1-4 years)

Or your daughter had a gun, she shot or scared of the rapist herself and she called you to tell her she was able to save herself thanks to her gun.

I would rather trust my family, friends and neighbors with guns then I would stranger working for the government. Both to protect themselves better and to use them responsibly.

I am from Serbia too. And this is a misrepresentation. It is not true that in the 90′ everybody got guns. The most of us already had guns somewhere at home. Usable or not, that is another question. And yes, the amount of arms did increase significantly and the atmosphere was special, but that was due to war, cultural and spiritual amputation done by Tito communism (for which there was no quick solution but people were desperate to lean on anything they could) and the ugly-savage westernization (Americanization the TV sells, no insult intended to Americans as such) that was being advertised all over (for which again Tito opened the door).

Saker’s text is clear and a sound one. If anything our experience here, can only validate his arguments. The cause of violence does not lie in a gun.

you said: “the most of us already had guns somewhere at home”. Excuse me ?! I never had a gun in my life and nobody in my family had a gun since WW2.

Maniacal obsession with possessing guns is not the fault of “Tito’s communism” but of Milosevic era. That SOB gave publicly the gun to his son as a present for his 17th birthday in the late 80’s which was a shock to everybody normal in the country. It was unprecedented. That was a sign of what was going to follow. And it was not nice.

I am very happy that I didn’t possess a gun then, because I was very young and there was a lot of violence everywhere around me and who knows what would have happened if I had one…The people got shot in the streets because of their hair-cut and similar “reasons”. Serbia was an absolute hell back then. Possession of guns by so many people resulted in what realistically could be described as pure fascism in society ! Human monsters like late Arkan were terrorizing the whole population. Of course, the similar fascism was introduced in Croatia, with war-lords and criminals terrorizing normal population who didn’t want to possess your precious guns.

If anything is a misrepresentation of Serbian experience in the 1990’s, it is your text.

1. The fact your family did not poses a gun is not important. You were not the only ones who did not poses one, but that does not contradict my statment (note the difference between most and all).
2. I did not state that maniacal obsession with possessing guns is the fault of “Tito’s communism”, I sad the atmosphere (the use of guns one could see at that period, violence) was. All the sad things of Milosevic era, as well as Arkan, other freak figures and media and society freak shows and trends are by large products of cultural lobotomy.

The point is: it was not the guns that were the problem.
If you took away guns from them, you would still have the same kind of freaks just finding themselves another means to do what they waned to do. Serbs were armed up to their teeth many times before in history (and with good reason, as in the 90′ there was good reason-war was not of our making), yet some of 90′ freaks and youth models are a new thing for us. But in spite of it all, there were so many good people that took up arms in the 90′ and gave their lives for us. The “good people” who want nothing to do with arms, war etc. should think what is going to happen when the only ones who know how to use a weapon are those with issues, bad intentions or on somebody’s payroll (as was Arkan and many alike).

The ‘they would find another means’ is a legitimate point, but so is the response that in the finding of other means time becomes an ally for the innocent – in a mass situation such as the shootings Saker begins his argument with – tell me what other means would accomplish what those deranged persons did?

So, it was Milosevic who, presenting his son with a gun, naturally, started the sequence of killing in the ex-YU, which resulted in “four wars in a row,” as the ziomedia claims?! You should get in contact with some Soros foundation for “peace & freedom to shed more “light” on that never-exhausting topic.

Or even better, join in with someone from the Zionist nest of PRopaganda, Hollywood, on a scenario on the Serbian “fascism” from 90s. They’re still looking for such “talents.”

Make sure you don’t miss on a scene with shooting at people “because of their hair-cut,” you know, it adds to absurdity you want to project.

Yes indeed, armed hordes of dirty Serbs were roaming the streets looking for any excuse to kill. No wonder ”so many” people died in Serbia during that time of “pure fascism.” (???)

“Human monsters like late Arkan” were not “terrorizing the whole population,” but were simply scare-crow criminals fighting the rival smuggling gangs for, the country was under embargo, & everything had to be smuggled in. Their mafia-internal fights had nothing to do with the “whole population,” except being role models for the few young wanna-bees with no perspective in life.

Ironically, “if anything is a misrepresentation of Serbian experience in the 1990’s, it is your text.”

Perhaps you may explain all the gruesome killings happening in Serbia lately that are so morbid, & there was nothing like that in our entire history before! Guess what, most of them are committed with cold weapons. Someone is apparently testing psychotropic drugs on the unsuspecting population, which are the main cause of the mass killings in the US as well.

You must be having some identity issues, inhaling some overly strong stuff, or perfidiously working “behind the enemy lines.?”

We Serbs for the most part of our history bore weapons, & used them well. In fact, except for the good poets & writers, we only know how to be good soldiers!

But now, w/out weapons, we are being thoroughly exterminated. So, Saker is right!

Right to bear arms. It’s in the constitution. If you think the govt is bad now, just wait till they disarm people. You have no idea how much the ared American people have slowed down the plans of our gangster oligarchy.

It is the current government that encourages the proliferation of weapons. Why? Because they have bigger ones and they cannot wait to clamp down on the crazies and institute the really dangerous ‘laws’ to repress us all. They are already attempting this.

“This is you first text ever where I am actually shocked with what you are saying. I think you’ve been in the US for too long, man! Maybe you should in reality move to Iceland or some similar place. Some peaceful place. Where they don’t carry guns. Because it is NOT normal!!!”

I completly agree!.
Its VERY american to get outraged about the notion of not beeing allowed to carry murder-weapons.

Unless you are a hunter, there is close to no excuse to let every psycho out there have access to guns.
And yes if all people have access to guns, then atleadt 10% of those people should never have gotten the guns.

Everyone having their own murder-weapons is close to a lawless society!.

And that was the reason in old west. Corrupt or no sherif/Working laws. So THEN letting everyone have guns was deterrent for the criminals.

But school massacre etc is not “criminals”, thats mostly normal children that have by accidents and life cruelty ended up bullying. And ferling frustrating they either some time kill themselves (suicide), or go out and kill “the enemy”(school, the area which “allowed” the bullying to take place).

Only one real argument to allow everyone to have guns in usa:
When the next civil war in usa (which will come sooner then later), its advisable to have alot of guns available that is not under a government controll.
Because a government is NEVER your friend.
Government is institutions for a selected few to controll the masses. Always been, always will be.
Question is how abused, not if.

So in a way i am for people having gun access, so they can easier overthrow their insane criminal thugs that is controlling the usa government.
And mire guns= less time for the criminals to be able to escape when it does explode. (But most of them are superrich, superinformed and very resourcefull = most will escape in anything less then a full WW3).

You don’t understand. Every psycho out there already HAS access to weapons. Because psychos won’t ask the permission to own a weapon, they’ll just get one somewhere. If they can’t get a gun, they’ll bludgeon someone with a hammer or stab someone with a knife, or I dunno, spray someone with gas and set them on fire, or they strangle someone with a piece of string, or smash their head with their bare fists, just like that. Crazy people are dangerous even without a gun. The one truly dangerous part of their body is their brain, and you stop them by shooting it out.
The more guns in general populace, the lesser chance a psycho gets to actually finish their act of violence.

No, I’m not an American. We had an interesting case here recently: a deranged guy came over to the bar and started shooting everybody (mostly because all the drunks were making too much noise and he couldn’t sleep). Eight dead, one gravely wounded. Should any single person in the bar carry a gun, all those people could’ve been alive.

Taking guns away from the common people doesn’t prevents the violence. It only renders the common people defenseless.

Saker,
Dont want to belabour the issue but what makes you think this is all just ignorance or stupidity? Our commissars are getting ready for the hard times ahead, when enough sheeple become aware of who is responsible, and the fewer guns around the better for them. It also helps to criminalize as much rational behavior so as to intimidate the prols.
From my perspective things are falling in place nicely. It’s as though the Sov Bolshies have fled their old killing fields and have, somehow, ended up here.
PCR’s latest rant was interesting. What happens when the scepticism of 911 gets around?

having read most of the comments there seems to be an elephant in the room…..

I’ve read more than a few times that nearly all of those ‘shool shooters’ were on some kind of psychotic drugs(for their own good naturally) and p4rovole suicidal tendancies and thoughts, whether gun owning or not.

The sucide rate in the USA, I suspect, is much greater than nerly everywhere else comparable, not including Somalia, Congo types of places.

And further, this aspect (psychotic drugs, prescibed by doctors,for the vast profits of the Pharm) is rigorously avoided in any news/discussion about guns.

A well-armed militia (like in Donbass and Lexington) is the key to curbing the inexorable power of fascists and overlords.

Even China, which is very adverse to guns in the hands of the masses, allows guns and is arming all its police to deal with terrorists and homicidal criminals.

Violence and guns are not in a 1:1 relationship.

What seems to be in 1:1 relationship with the US mass murder episodes is psychiatric drugs, weak parenting and Liberals destroying school systems that used to identify these emotional cripples and get them into therapy before they did their damage.

NRA all the way!

Without the Second Amendment there is nothing but totalitarianism. Times haven’t changed. Government has. It wants all the power.

A well-armed militia (like in Donbass and Lexington) is the key to curbing the inexorable power of fascists and overlords.

As I mentioned in my article, this is a myth. The first thing a Fascist regime or overlord will get is a specially trained guard which will make minced meat from any armed civilians. I don’t but that argument at all. Sorry :-(

Without the Second Amendment there is nothing but totalitarianism. Times haven’t changed. Government has. It wants all the power.

Look at the US: it is already totalitarian (the 1% rule) and yet it is rather liberal on guns. You can very much have a totalitarian state and gun ownership.

By the way, the 1%ers have all the guns they want anyway in any regime…

Modern totalitarianism in America is more akin to the Brave New World, Aldous Huxley model. A slavery of the mind via the hooks of popular opinion and entertainments. People can still make choices in their lives but such choices are limited within the framework of a paradigms carefully nurtured through the art of Public Relations. Edward Bernays 1928 “Propaganda” is very revealing in regards to this aspect.

The “boot stomping on your face” Orwellian style of totalitarianism is inefficient as the people are generally miserable and less productive. This is the kind of totalitarianism evident in North Korea or the kind that was evident in the U.S.S.R. previously.

The Second Amendment in the United States is only effective (to a degree) in addressing Orwellian totalitarianism. Knowledge and wisdom is the antidote for Brave New World totalitarianism.

The United States has been destroyed from within. Morality has generally been thrown out the window which ensures societal problems whereby government is strengthened as an antithesis to the increase in irresponsibility. People are also psychologically divided into classes (native origin/wealth/culture) and thus there is no longer a unity of the people upon the principles of limited government established to protect life, liberty, and property.

When a people are conquered psychologically the personal ownership of arms is irrelevant. Even if they were to overthrow a tyrant they would simply install a new one.

The “Magna Carta” has over time become a positive force.But it didn’t start that way.It wasn’t done to protect, you and me, from any unjust powers of a government.It was issued for the benefit of what were the “oligarchs” of the 13th Century.In those days it was the King and government that protected (very little,but still some) the common citizens from the noble classes who wanted to have total power over their lives and property (such as it was).The “Barons” forced the King to sign the Magna Carta to keep their looted wealth from being touched.They didn’t care if the “peoples” little bit of wealth was confiscated if the state needed money.But not the “Barons” wealth and property.The great lords that composed that document would be shocked if they saw today it being praised as a lofty “charter” benefiting the “commons”.It was the same with Parliaments,they weren’t created to bring “democracy” to the “people”.That is a 19th and 20th Century remaking of them.They were set up to limit a Kings power to control his “mighty” subjects.Over the centuries they slowly morphed into what we see today.But up until the 19th Century the idea of “one man one vote” wasn’t true in most of Europe.I believe it wasn’t until the 1830’s that the UK adopted total universal suffrage (for men).And in much of Europe it was later than that,the UK was considered very “progressive”.France after the Revolution also was a progressive state.But I think it took the Bismarck era to complete that in Germany.And in Austria-Hungary it was I believe the 1860’s that saw even an authoritarian Parliament.While Russia didn’t have the Duma until 1905.So as you can see.Things aren’t always as we see them today.Yes,”today” the Magna Carta” is something to look up to.But not at the time.Also true for “parliaments”,or as they were considered in the past “clubs for the nobility and wealthy”.Hmmm,come to think of it.I guess they haven’t really changed that much .

I have no idea what the Russian or Cossack tradition is concerning the ownership of guns by the people, but as you state it is clearly a critical part of our Anglo-Saxon conception of personal liberty and self-governance. I would appreciate it if you would sometime discuss firearms ownership pre-1917 in Russia and also today, they would have seemed essential in Siberia and during the struggle against the Turks in the South. Obviously the situation was different under Communism.

Russia has always had a culture of weapons, be it firearms or cold weapons. Just the sheer size of the country make that a necessity. In this way, the vast wilderness of the USA is very much like the vast wilderness of Russia. There is a reason why Russia is one of the biggest weapons manufacturer on the planet and why Russian weapons are, in my totally biased opinion, the best on the planet. From that point of view, Cossacks are not really different from any frontiersmen. Finally, and unlike the USA, Russia has been attacked and invaded so many times that weapons are a symbol of peace for Russians, not of violence. It’s being disarmed which produced horrors for Russia in her long history.
Cheers!

My father and his people were Cossacks from Kuban, from the days of Taras Bulba until Stalin.
Before the Revolution, call-up for military service was at the age of eighteen and one was on active call duty until 43 (25 years on stand-by), and then more after that when times got tough.
All new recruits provided with uniform, but had to bring along own horse and weapons, which included a shashka (“sabre”) and kinjal (“dagger”). All weapons were always at home. Children learned how to use weapons from early age – slashing through water in a river or lake with the shashka until no bubbles arose from the slash indicated the perfect cutting stroke, which in the right hands could cleave an enemy from shoulder to waist in one stroke – no twisting of the blade during the cut owing to years of practice with water.
Benefits?
Centuries of protection of the “krai” (borderland) against foreign incursions. “U-krai-in-a” means “borderland”. Ukraina being NOT the territory of Galicians, and other western imperialists.
Results?
Well-earned reputation of being among the world’s best cavalry and most fearsome warriors helped to protect Russia against that which is happening in Ukraine right now. Ask any old German who knows, and who would have heard it from grandparents, about what it was like to fight Cossacks.
My father taught me how to fully operate 3 types of weapons when I was 7 years old – I was the eldest son of the family and it was my duty to protect family at all costs – and I still do. It gives me strength and purpose. Yet I am a natural healer by profession. Senseless violence is not part of my creed. Fighters and healers are two sides of the same coin – note the perfect example of the Hunkpapa Sioux Sitting Bull, a healer far beyond my capabilities.
The Lakota Sioux Indians call it being a “wica” or a complete man.
Sound melodramatic?
Then wake up and note how the ordinary citizens are defending their lands in Donbass, WITH WEAPONS.

Mass killing will continue until gun control laws come in. Not because guns are removed from society but simply because laws have been enacted to disarm the population.

We had a number of mass shootings in Australia some years back culminating in a big one with around 30 people shot. All states agreed to stricter gun control, many licenced firearms were destroyed and the run of mass shootings stopped.
10 years later it was still incredibly easy to obtain an unlicensed firearm without having to deal with the criminal elements.

In saying that I have also looked at the stats, and spur of the moment shootings like murder suicide did drop in the years after the new gun laws came in.

I think you missed what I was saying.
There was a build up in media and political circles for Australia wide gun control laws. Some states resisted this. Although handguns have always been controlled, the states have had various laws on firearms, Queensland at the time no licence was required.

The Port Arthur massacre came at a time when there was much media hype and a push by federal government for the states to bring in much tougher gun laws.

Port Arthur was like manna from heaven and allowed the swift passage of tougher more uniform gun laws throughout Australia. (All the guns owned by the shooter were registered)

With all due respect, Peter, you are wrong.
I am also from Australia and spoke with professional shooters soon after the Tasmanian Port Arthur massacre – that which you mention, where 34 people were purportedly killed by one shooter with an auto weapon. 34!! Absolute garbage if you know anything about shooting.
These people were running in different directions and the supposed “lone ” gunman was not exactly a sharp-shooter, but even if he was, there was no way – according to pretty informed people, that he could have brought so many down ALONE. Bear in mind – 34 DEAD not wounded, meaning 34 extremely-well placed shots in vital areas on each victim. This is only in the realms of fantasy for a single gun.
There were rumours that had the area been thoroughly investigated and all revealed, then empty casings may have been found in various locations surrounding the scene – speculation, of course. Did you know that this event occurred within weeks after John Howard’s election victory – it made him a hero overnight, and really pissed off most of the responsible gum owners.
Of course the run of mass shootings stopped – duh! One mass shooting was enough to get all the guns!!!
BTW try and get a weapons licence these days – a financial and administrative nightmare – even for an air rifle.

According to this page there were 20 people killed (and 12 injured), not 34 killed. However, that is about four times as many as even an expert killer could manage, demonstrating that the Port Arthur Massacre was a hoax and a false flag operation just like 9/11.

FYI, I am an Australian and own guns legally, but in this country it is cheaper to buy gun illegally than legally. And kids in immigrant suburbs still manage to butchrt each other with machetes that are sold for 9AUD at the markets.

“About-Face! Saudi Arabia and Russia Ink Six New Deals, Embark on New ‘Petroleum Alliance’”

^This stinks to high heaven. I suppose a higher oil price deal with the grease Saudi oil snakes is far more important than the mass murdering of civilians in Yemen.
As time goes by I’m having less and less confidence on Russia’s leadership. What are they gonna do next? Send Lavrov on peace talks with the Daesh [IS]? Maybe a Putin’s vacation to sunny Israhell is overdue too?

“The actual crime rates amongst those who has a “concealed carry license” in the United States is actually less than amongst teachers, law enforcement officers and even clergymen. Gun carriers (those with a CCL) are the single most law abiding social group.”
=============================================================================
I am trying to imagine how these statistics were gathered. How did they control for overlap? (For instance, do not law enforcement officers carry “concealed carry licenses”?) In fact, does not everyone with a CCL also fall into an occupational group? Does the government keep a database of persons committing a crime, sorted by occupation? What “crimes” are considered? Are we looking exclusively at clergymen or school teachers with a felony conviction? I could be wrong, but don’t members of the professions you cite become ex-members if they are convicted of a felony?

And who keeps data on every crime, let’s say, insider trading, that includes whether the guilty party has a CCL?

Gotta link?
===========================================================================
Anybody who walks four Rotties on a leash, and his Rotties, have had obedience training.
===========================================================================
“Large?” Hardly a characteristic that separates the wheat from the chaff. Do we mean height at the shoulder, weight, a formula including both? Pits aren’t very large. Bulldogs are genetic dwarves. Red setters are tall, but the clowns not bred from hunting strains are hell to obedience train. (Charming, though, and laughter is the best medicine.) Some strains developed as guard dogs show extreme sexual dimorphism of temperament; the bitches will carry their pups to you and drop them in your lap. In fact, the species as a whole shows a strong testosterone component to their aggression; gelding would probably do more than obedience training.

“Large” is not completely unrelated to danger; it is roughly correlated to how much damage a dog can do if it does bite, both in the power of its jaws and how much of your precious bodily part it can get into its mouth. (Very roughly. Lovely leggy retrievers are bred for soft jaws.) Chihuahuas aren’t scary even if they are hysterically aggressive, but if they latch onto your Achilles tendon they can put you on crutches. Bull dogs have the template of terrible jaws, but they too are genetic dwarves, and first they have to catch you.

Massive amounts of such research on all aspects of firearms ownership including links between CCW and crime, no unsupported assertions, links to sources — mostly law enforcement, public records and scholarly research papers.

Nothing about “insider trading,” though, that being a silly irrelevancy.

That is a private matter which nobody should have to answer. But okay, I will: one for home protection, one for when my wife and I work (we have a mobile veterinary clinic and so we are a prime target for drugheads wanting to get controlled substances) and one for concealed carry. There are drugs in our house, in our van and we spend the day in all sorts of very different neighborhoods ranging from the rather safe to some really nasty ones. And I am not willing to have my wife stabbed, robbed or shot because of Matthew 5:39. Christianity never banned self-defense and this is why military service (collective self defense) is not banned either. I might or might not chose to defend myself (I would never bother to defend my material possessions), but when this is about my wife or kids then I would have no hesitation at all. If you would not defend your loved ones, then this is your problem (and your right – exercise it to your heart’s content).

Yes, the middle one is the Shield which I consider to be the most *perfect* firearm I have ever fired. It is really the nec plus ultra of any semi-auto, at least in my opinion.
Believe it or not, but I even like the original Shield trigger. But I am getting a custom trigger kit from Galloway Precision for my Bodyguard which I find way too long.
Thanks!

Alas, no amount of gun will protect anybody if the 1%ers want to institute martial law. Martial law is *military* law and it is backed by *military* power. Civilians don’t stand a chance. In fact, I would STRONGLY urge everybody to never EVER consider using violence against the US government if only because that would be doing exactly what they want us to do. Against Uncle Sam – only use the FIRST Amendment, never the second one.

I think a lot of people do not make the clear distinction between gun control and ban. And both sides of the “gun control” battle try to spin that notion in their favor.
What I think is needed is a clear, rational, and national, system of control (not ban) of gun ownership and use (kind of guns, number of guns, mental and physical ability, etc….).
Also, I think a mandatory registration and insurance policy for guns (like for cars) should be in place. Victims of gun violence should be paid by the insurance (and the insurance goes after the perpetrator, like for car insurance when they increase premium). And let the “market” determine the “cost” of owning a gun; that way, owning a gun will be a more responsible action not like owning a toy. Seems like the only way most Americans understand anything at all is when their wallet is involved.

I think a lot of people do not make the clear distinction between gun control and ban. And both sides of the “gun control” battle try to spin that notion in their favor.
What I think is needed is a clear, rational, and national, system of control (not ban) of gun ownership and use (kind of guns, number of guns, mental and physical ability, etc….).

Agreed. That is also what I was trying to outline (my tongue-in-cheek article title notwithstanding)

I must disagree with the logic here. The figures don’t lie. It is an inescapable fact that almost all countries that limit the posession of guns have magnitudes fewer gun deaths. The exception for possession might be Switzerland, but there are very strict controls in place there.

If a gun is around it is going to get used when someone lacking control has it at hand. e.g emotion, fear -and notably misplaced fear, hate, child, mental case etc.

As for the individual, there are circumstances where having a gun might protect you but these few exceptions are statistically overwhelmed in an overall population by the above.

Having spent several years in a minor war zone in the Middle East I can assure everyone that I was safer unarmed -I presented no challenge or danger to anyone and would not present as a ‘combatant’.
And I did have a machine pistol aimed at me at night and was followed with gun raised by that individual who was guarding some grand high poobah. It was probably the longest 5-10 minute walk of my life. If I had had a gun and reflexively pulled it I very much doubt I’d be writing this.

Americans may worship their guns but Boston proved that they are of little use against the state.

“If a gun is around it is going to get used when someone lacking control has it at hand. e.g emotion, fear -and notably misplaced fear, hate, child, mental case etc.
As for the individual, there are circumstances where having a gun might protect you but these few exceptions are statistically overwhelmed in an overall population by the above.”

Every day in the United States, armed citizens use firearms to defend themselves against criminal assault. The major media will not allow any coverage of these events. The NRA (which is in my opinion otherwise a horrible outfit) does collect news reports from local media all over the country and publishes them in one place –https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Your link gives anecdotal evidence and if there was any bias it would support the use of guns so it is impossible to make any conclusive analysis. I was struck though by the repeating phrase that the victim ‘retrieved a gun’ e.g. ‘the woman refused and got into her car and retrieved a gun…’. Given that a knife was involved my first question was why didn’t she just drive away? Obviously the immediate advantage is to the assailant so it raises immediate suspicions when someone has time to ‘retrieve a gun’ rather than running away. I know it’s difficult to not ‘stand your ground’ -in lesser circumstances I at times have difficulty practicing what I preach but it is the best for all involved. Violence begets violence.
Money and material possessions are replaceable, lives are not. I do have some experience here as I worked for many years in victim assistance.

Same with the bear -go back in the house and get some bear spray or let the bear escape. I have experience here too; I hike a lot and on one hike see the same bear 2 out of 3 times. We ignore each other. Sure there are always exceptions; I have been followed by a Grizzly and also had a confrontation with a black bear that exhibited unusual behaviour until a day later I found out that the bear was protecting a carcase hidden from view. In the first case the Griz was trying to escape from others and probably thought I was too. In both cases were I a hunter both bears -and possibly me too- would be dead. There’s frequently a better way than the use of firearms.

I am not telling anyone in the USA, where I lived for a while, what they should or should not do with their guns but you will find that other countries that also have crime don’t have the gun deaths -many of them domestic -that the USA does. They think the USA in many ways is barking mad.

Some aspects seem ludicrous such as not requiring weapons to be locked in secure cabinets away from children. The argument is that they must be at hand for intruders; the downside is obvious. The same for carrying weapons in bars so that drunken disagreements become fatal.

Weapons escalate violence and if everyone has them then nobody is safer.
If the USA spent their war money on the domestic economy and reducing the root causes of most crime the country would be better off and crime schools (prisons) minimised.

Here in America the police, and all other levels of government won’t and can’t protect the citizens from violence and often is itself the source of violence.

The police protect and serve the wealthy class by killing anyone who dares to question power with impunity. Many people have died from not instantly obeying authority ? An affront to our Israeli trained police will get you killed.

How many people of color must die ? Do they not have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones?

The first amendment speaks to our God given rights and the second amendment insures we as citizens can protect those rights. I don’t want to depend on the government for my protection. I might have to protect myself and family FROM the government.

Honorable Saker, I agree with you completely. You’re spot on. Thank you once again for expressing in words what I believe.

The second amendment specifies that it is within the framework of a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Since when do commas mean “ignore what precedes this comma?

.. If guns are outlawed only the cops will have guns .. and in the US that’s very frightening.

But as far as the fascists and martial law, of course small firearms are no match for the military’s weapons, but they might be useful in taking some of those weapons from the military, Or taking out a few of the fascist leaders. Yet, it’s the awareness and training or knowledge of the citizens which count for most, and in that the US is in a near hopeless situation (especially with the ‘professional army’ now being used and the mass of civilians having no military training.

There are still communities in the US where the police are members of the community, not yet armed against one another. As soon as one of these good civilian cops is mindlessly murdered, in pour the militia and we are all potential terrorists. Even a little old lady like me. I wish every community could have community cops because the fear factor rachets up when a good policeman fears a potential gun carrier and acts accordingly.

It is the counterinsurgent Liberal Democrat gang that head the drive to disarm citizens, while, at the same time, in the Oligarch puppet Congress, they vote $Billions for weapons of mass destruction to destroy whole nations and whole peoples.

Disarm the imperialist Oligarchs first. Then ask for the militia to hand over their arms. And we will still refuse.

Any good Anarchist knows that the people should be better armed, and more militarily prepared than their governments.

The overwhelming death numbers come from imperialist wars, such as:

WW I – 20 million

WW II – 60 million

Vietnam – 2 million,

Indonesia 1965, – 1 million

The 100 Years war in Germany – millions

Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, extermination of Native Americans, & too many other butcheries to mention in this limited space.

Dear Mr Saker. How did you get a gun permit if you are not a citizen? When I lived in the USA you could buy a shotgun or even a Kalshnikov, but not a gun. The FBI had to give you the OK to buy a gun. It was kind of strange to know I could buy a Kalashnikov with just my ID. Did they change the laws ?

There were no police on the island at the time. Brevik events can’t be stopped, you can only create a culture where these kinds of atrocities become less likely. Finland had a couple of shooting incidents a few years ago, but it appears to have settled down with no further mass killings. These are one off events, rather than the regular occurrences they have become in the USA.

In my family, both on mother’s side and the father’s there were no guns, even for hunting, since 1918. But all our neighbours did have guns, handguns. And we did not fear them. We believed they would protect us in situations when there is no possibility of getting help from the police. My next door neighbour was retired Yugoslavian army officer, WW2 veteran. He did not hesitate to pull his gun. Never on neighbours. And he never fired a shot. But many a would be thief, petty or grand, was scared away when they operated in our area. There was another guy, in his 30’s, former ‘tough guy’, a more than little psychotic at times. He used to severely beat his wife, has been involved in countless bar and street fights. And he too did use his gun. On himself, at age 36.

And I am Serbian from former Yugoslavia, and I lived in Belgrade in 90s. There were shootings, I have witnessed some, innocent bystanders were occasionally shot and killed. But rest assured, all those guns and hand grenades and AK47s were very illegal. And I have a bit of experience with the Yugoslavian wars. There were massacres on all sides against all sides. And none of them was committed by neighbours who had legal arms, either hunting rifles or handguns. All atrocities were done by organized units, military or paramilitary. And most of the time far from perpetrators lived. Many neighbours were fighting each other, but as members of organized units, because it was a war, bloody and nasty, across religious and ethnic lines. Legal arms did not help anybody protect themselves or their families in this war. But those legally held weapons did not kill people just like that. Even today, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia are full of personal weapons, AK, rifles, hand grenades and occasional RPG. I did not mention Montenegro, they always had guns, and the crime rate was always the lowest in the country.

Therefore, guns, legal or illegal, are neutral, neither good or bad, if in hands of responsible people. Criminals, they always use illegal weapons, shoot each other, and if you get caught in a crossfire, well, tough luck. Only mentally deranged people turn to mass shootings. And number of untreated deranged people is direct consequence of poverty and hopelessness. In former Yugoslavia, under communists, there was no extreme poverty. Everybody had free health care and free schooling, so everybody had a chance to change their life. And most serious crimes were those of passion – a husband caught wife and the neighbour in the act, shot them both, or used a knife or a hatchet. Then he gets drunk, if he was not already drunk and sits and waits for the police to arrive. Or they might have shot themselves as well.

Saker:
I agree with you in gender, number and grade.
I remind you that, do not see neighboring Swiss fights.
There is a link that does not know why loads of water does not open in some countries, namely:

An old Swiss anecdote states that the German Prince Wilhelm Hohenzollern once when visiting Switzerland, was invited to attend one of the numerous military training that citizens of that country are subjected. At one point he asked the commander of the exercise: How many men in arms possesses you? He was answered: One million. The prince later Kaiser of Germany, then asked: What would you do if my five million soldiers crossed its border tomorrow? And the Swiss commander replied: Each of my men would five shots and go home!

In the debate on the right to possession and use of weapons, those favorable point to Switzerland where almost every adult male is legally permitted to possession of firearms. One of the few nations with a per capita rate higher weapons than the United States, Switzerland boasts virtually no crimes with firearms. Thus, argue those in favor government control of weapons is not necessary.

However, those who are opposed, pointing to Switzerland as one of the developed nations that have tighter control over weapons. They claim that all weapons are registered and that the purchase of handguns requires preview and a license. Crimes with firearms are really nonexistent in Switzerland therefore conclude, it is necessary strict control over the weapons.

Who is right? As always the anti-weapons are wrong, but that does not make a favorable group necessarily right. The possession of firearms in Switzerland challenges the simplifications and clichés of debates elsewhere.”

I really have never liked guns, nor sport hunting or the fishing.
I love the quiet life and I was a girl with a penchant for mysticism.
But after awakening from Matrix, and seen what I saw last year here and there, I think that besides learning Systema (a matter for now parked for I am disabled arm) now I also would like to learn to shoot.

A Ukrainian lady ( from Donbass ) who I know from my job, said crying few months ago that she never thought one thing like this could happen in her country .
Well in my country I do not seem that so strange, especially if here will win the elections a party truly left ( without Trotskyists quitacolmmnists dynamiting it from within ), in fact already happened once, and we had to endure 40 years because, thanks to the good pleasure of those from the house, the usual ( USA, UK, Germany ….), Paco…. , he died in bed.

If this does not change, and does not look, I see the future as brown tending to black, I see fascism everywhere
When specimens Azov style call my door I’d have a chance.

Systema is a great system of self defense, with practice even the most modest physiques can out maneuver and over power a larger opponent simply through technique. Systema is great for disarming and close combat, such as would be found in most real life situations.

Great to see Systema mentioned here, and what an intelligent discussion in general! I’d love to hear Saker’s and other peoples’ thoughts on the differences between the special forces training in Russia vs. the USA. Great to hear the Serbian perspectives on this thread also, another reason this site is so unique and wonderful — all kinds of perspectives.

In case one wonders what the ‘Bearer of the mother-load of democracy‘ truly wants, the following line spills the beans, “He questioned whether Moscow’s “backward-looking” aggressive behavior will change while President Vladimir Putin remains at the helm.” LINK to Yahoo.

As to guns; I don’t see anyone stand up to the government, because those who did [Ruby Ridge, Waco, anyone?] and those who do, are and will be eliminated.

Guns themselves do not kill, someone has to pull the trigger. As far as I know [and if I’m wrong, please correct me], people are being shot and killed everywhere on this planet [regardless whether one is allowed to carry guns or not].

In a picture perfect world, we’d all be singing and dancing and have tons of fun. In reality, a minority of people [and that percentage is stunningly minimal] really loves to f*** over other people, and, as we can’t be all ‘Bruce Lee’ or have special Spetznaz training to help us out, I want my granny to be able to blast an intruder back onto the porch, no questions asked.

That is, until peace has fully settled amongst mankind…

Here’s Jeff Jefferies, with his take on ‘guns in the US.’ WARNING strong language, that most likely will offend you

I’ve been tracking the negative effects of the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI drugs) for about thirty years since its introduction and use. Note that these mass shootings did not occur before these drugs were used. After each shooting report withing a day I find that the shooter was using an SSRI almost without exception.

It has been amazing to watch the pharmaceutical and medical industry get a pass by the media (and the elites) for several decades. There is too much of a money gravy train for anyone to address the primary issue of these shootings. The elites make money while people keep dying. Besides, with every shooting the elites grab a little more power.

Why should we expect anything else from the elites? They have murdered about three millions since the 1990’s from the Balkans to Ukraine to the Middle East to North Africa to East Asia. Why would a couple of dozen citizens every year in mass shootings give them pause?

Unless it’s intentional. In a book from the early 90s it stated that the CIA ran Project Orion that was supposed to create support for gun control, by these mass shootings. With the use of Prozac(and today various other drugs) and electro magnetic frequencies certain individuals would be made to become violent.
Behold a pale horse by William Cooper was the book.

“And while the notion of “the people” rising up against “the government” is silly NRA propaganda to support the right to bear arms (1000 gun toting civilians can easily be defeated by 30 well trained military soldiers),”

That’s actually not true, as the US military has discovered repeatedly over the last fifteen years.

There are at least 70 million and perhaps as many as two hundred million firearms in the US. There are at least 300 million people in the US. If the less than a million-man military – with only ten percent of those “combat capable” can’t control ten or twenty thousand insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan, I rather doubt they could control the few percent of the US population who decided to rise up against the government.

Sure, the military could destroy a “march on Washington”. But that would quickly turn into a guerrilla war that the US military would very quickly lose.

In any guerrilla war, the guerrillas start out armed with small arms. Those small arms are then used to obtain larger weapons in short order. One insurgency in Greece started with a few shotguns used for bird hunting. You use what weapons you have to take the superior weapons from your enemy.

Of course, the real issue is that the vast majority of Americans aren’t prepared to go to war with their government – and may never be due to the depth of the brainwashing that they live in a “free” society and don’t need to.

But if even a couple hundred thousand lose that brainwashing, the US military is doomed.

or it can be called “machine for killing attackers from a safe distance”. There is nothing noble about a gun, it is a tool. You can use a knife to cut bread to feed to poor or to stab babies for fun. The knife makes no difference, you do.

I don t pretend to be an expert on the matter but wanted to share a story. Several years ago i lived in a rural region of Canada where you can t hope to have any assistance from the police under 30 minutes even if it s an emergency. One evening I heard some unusual sound coming from my kitchen. I correctly surmised it was someone trying to open the window to get access. I reached for my 12 ga shotgun and the mere “schla-schlak” sound when I loaded a shell sent whoever it was fleeing instantly. The next morning i found a flat head screwdriver beside the window.

Never knew who it was or his intentions but it was clearly more effective than dialing 911 and hiding under the bed. There is certainly places where police cant protect people quickly enough and disarming the people there would not make them any safer. In fact I think trying to disarm people from such region would only make them obtain guns illegally and breed contempt for the law, you can t ask people who can t get police protection quickly to simply hide and pray in a emergency

Anyone, who refuses to accept that he is the one who is ultimately the most responsible for his own safety, survival, and success, has become a dependent of other men. He has subordinated his freedom to the will of others.

Gun ownership is a fundamental protection of one’s freedom and security.

The focus of concern should not be on guns themselves; but on the responsibilities of those who own guns.

Personally, I wish that gun ownership and their use was as regulated as automobile ownership and driving privileges. And I think that the NRA could play a very constructive role in this effort, by standardizing procedures and requirements across the country, so that gun ownership will be better understood, more acceptable, and more common.

Licensing -involving training on safety, marksmanship, and maintenance- should be as rigorous and formalized as it is for automobiles, trucks, and buses. And there should be separate licensing (training) routines for rifles, pistols, and shotguns. And prospective would-be hunters should have to go to through a course on “hunting” before they could get a hunting license.

Registrations and annual inspections of the individual weapons should be conducted in a fashion similar to motor vehicles as well.

I think anyone, who opposes “government” knowing what guns he has or where they are located, is looking upon his fellow countrymen with suspicion rather than respect. It should not concern him.

I am not strongly for, nor against, “conceal and carry” permits. They should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

There has always been at least one serviceable firearm in my family’s household since Colonial times. Lately, it has only been rifles, since the plutocrats, who run New York City, made it ridiculously expensive and difficult to own handguns. Unfortunately, I am the only one who acquired proficiency in their use. After me, I don’t think there will be anyone. And that is a more serious social problem for our country than gun ownership itself.

Can you think of a rational reason to *deny* a concealed carry license to an adult person who is:

1) a legal resident
2) no criminal record
3) no history of violence
4) no history of substance abuse
5) no mental issues
5) physically capable of using firearms in a safe way

in particular if:

1) the permit can be revoked at any time if conditions 1-5 do not apply any more
2) the person is held liable in civil and criminal court for his/her actions
3) that license would not allow him/her to carry in a legally defined “no guns” zone

I cannot. But I would be curious to listen to any such reasons if they exist.

As I stated before, I do not have a strong opinion either for or against conceal and carry permits.

I see no reason why a person, who is carrying a firearm, should feel the need to conceal it, unless such concealment has a specific purpose: e.g. bodyguards, private investigators, undercover law enforcement officers, or someone carrying sensitive documents or large sums of money..

I see no reason why a person, who is carrying a firearm, should feel the need to conceal it

You are confusing “right” with “need”. I feel like I don’t have to justify to you why I would want to wear concealed.
But, in the real world, there are a couple of very good reasons to conceal your gun:
1) to avoid freaking out the anti-gun folks who will have a fit if they see you open carry
2) to avoid begin a target in case of robbery, assault, etc. and to keep the advantage of surprise
3) to not show the potential predators which people are UN-armed (and thus safer prey).

In a non-paranoid society “open carry” would make sense. Alas, we live in a world were anti-gun nuts do not make that possible.

Thus is many US states (like FL), it is legal to carry concealed and illegal to “open carry”. Sad, but true.

It is easy. This is what the police can easily ascertain. For that purpose, the issuing authority will have access to databases where all that info is stored. Furthermore, to lie on a license application is a severely punished felony.
It is not a perfect system, but it works pretty darn well. In FL only less than 1% of licenses ever get revoked and CCL carriers are basically the most law abiding citizens.
It’s the folks WITHOUT a CCL who are the real problem

Not sure about that, but apply the same criteria to the politicians (and the police, TSA, etc.) in the US and whole bunch of them would be disqualified.

A question is: if you can’t trust citizens with guns than how can you trust them to run their own country? And that does go the core of it, and the attitudes of the politicians and plutocracy, doesn’t it!

If citizens can be trusted to run their country — that ‘democracy thing’ — then how can they not be trusted to be armed (with the standard exceptions). So are the Europeans generally disarmed? Is that from guns or control over government, or from information? This is a more fundamental issue that appears at the surface.

The best reason to have a gun is to protect yourself from the crazy people with 4 Rottweilers, a couple of pit bulls, and an alligator.

I don’t know — I can argue both sides and both seem correct when I argue them — I am undecided on it.
But because I’m undecided I am very hesitant to ban guns, although I do think it should require training, as you say — and I wish there was much more training required before being able to drive a car.

Still, the big problem in the US in not guns, but crazy and ignorant people — who elect psychopaths who kill millions. Maybe give people guns and ban psycho politicians?

well, that is the point: I have not met him YET :-)
(but I would be delighted to)
hugs,
The Saker
PS: do I really mean that such a thing is impossible? No. But I have yet to meet such a person. I hear that some cops are like that. But I am pretty sure that they are in the minority.

Well… I agree that there is an anti government strand of American culture which denies government a monopoly on violence. Ie firearms. I also know that many attribute the collapse of Somalia to an influx of weapons which disrupted a complex social code. I live In Switzerland which has tremendous amounts of guns, more than the states. Temperamentally I tend to be in favor of regulation of firearms esp. Military grade ones Ie grenade launchers and assault rifles. There isn’t a cry out in Switzerland to control firearms but then Switzerland doesn’t have a record of weekly mass murders of [black] people. In the UK the police don’t regularly have guns either. There is a saying. If there is a revolver in the first act of a play. It will be used by the end of the last act.

Saker great rant….yes I too saw those sad stories of more people gunned down and I thought immediately that it was probably false flags because the authorities want to get all our guns…so they can come without danger and ‘control’ us. I believe this is very important to them, since the Bundy Ranch episode last year.

This was a decent rant. Regarding the “macho” dog owners and their attack dogs, I’ve a simple cure. Chop the owners up and feed them to zoo carnivores (or better yet, just toss them into the animal’s cages alive), and put the dogs through retraining to remove the aggression. The later does work sometimes with aggressive trained dogs. The owners are incurable, though, and should be put down. Zoo food being a very useful and productive way of disposing of them. ;D

Incidentally what will be the single most damaging thing to Ukrainian society over the next 10 years – the ubiquitous presence of dangerous weapons (and shooters) that post war Ukraine (and its European neighbours) will have to live with.

Hi Saker, what kind of pistols are those? I zoomed in on the picture but couldn’t read the brand and the model. I’ve been thinking about getting a semi-auto but I can’t decide if i want to go old school (SA: 1911 copy) or modern (DA: Sig or Glock). I don’t want to spend a fortune…

99% correct.
I took the photo for the latest S&W catalog.
The full size shown here is a .40 whereas I prefer the 9mm. The Shield is the same. My bodyguard is the M&P 2015 version and I did not want the laser on it (I put night sights on it anyway).
But they look close enough to use as an illustration

Thanks for the clarification- S&W’s small M&P models are an excellent carry choice. I currently carry a Czech military vz-82 in 9mm Makarov, and I have a Glock 9mmx19mm for afternoons of range drills. The vz-82 has polygonal rifling as does the Glock.

Practicing regularly with a semi-auto .22LR target pistol before buying a centerfire pistol does wonders for handling proficiency and technique.

I have always been partial to S&W. My first, still in Europe, was a S&W 686 Revolver. Loved it. What I wish I had for carry is the Russian PSM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSM_pistol). A friend of mine in Europe has one of these as his primary conceal carry weapon and it is superb. Czech weapons are superb and, if I had the money, I would love to have a good old CZ-75. I also love the Swiss Sig P210, but I have never been a fan of Glocks, maybe because I am a contrarian by nature :-)
My dream weapon would still be an AKSU-74 with a BS-1. I know that they have issues, but they are still unique in their class. Besides, I have to confess that while I am a decent handgun shot, I am shitty with rifles. Not horrible, but very very average at best. I find hanguns more “zenny” and I love to go to the (outdoors) range for 30-40 mins, just to forget about everything except hitting the target.
Cheers!
The Saker

Best weapon for self-defense is a shotgun (best is sawed off except illegal). Powerful and need only fire once, but why would you need to use it? When someone sees you have a shotgun they won’t mess around with you. Similar logic for concealed weapons — if I carried a pistol (becaue a shotgun would be too cumbersome) I’d want a big one in plain sight to avoid a problem before I had to pull out something hidden and actually shoot someone (very messy).

Actually, I believe that the best self-defense is a dog. They are superb at defending you and their deterrent capability is awesome.
As for shotguns, they are no good IMHO. Listen to this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrxkjRXk7m8
Cheers!

Fully agree Saker. The US gov’t disarms its foreign opponents by armed force or indirect subjugation, yet most Americans fail to realize they are also on this list as a population.

Freedom from oppression and thuggery is possible through the ballot box, jury box, or the cartridge box. Maintenance is the key to keeping it limited to the first two and holding the third choice in reserve.

I am strongly against the right to bear firearms, for some simple reasons:
1. I can expect people to not carry firearms. So If there is a real dispute with a local, it is unlike he will aim a gun at me, rather hit me with a fist.
2. Policemen can expect that too. They don’t need to shoot. They are not frightened, so they don’t touch their guns.
3. You don’t defend civil rights by damaging others’ rights too quickly and too severe. The man who shot dead a young German exchange pupil in his garage took the pupils’ life to prevent theft or just a dare. The US man should have carried a big stick and talked to the pupil.
I have never seen a civil gun owner on pictures/tv, practicing shooting at legs or so.

by banning firearms you are bringing it down to physical strength. I am 6’3 for 250lbs so I have no problems with that. But my wife does. Firearms even the plane. As somebody said, Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal. The fact is that you can *never* enter into a shoot-out confident that you will prevail. Not even with very good training. Criminals and thugs HATE these kind of odds.

As for shooting legs – you miss the point. First, shooting legs can kill too. The point is not to kill, but to stop an aggressor. To do that you need to shoot at the “visible centre of mass”. If the threat does not justify using lethal force, then it does not justify using a gun. It is that simple. “Shooting at legs” is a myth, it is based on the wrong idea that there is a less-than-quite-lethal way to use a gun. In the real world, using a gun is *always* considered lethal force, even if you miss. And that is how it should be or people will, really, start using guns to settle minor disputes.

Maybe it would be good for Americans if it was down to physical strength. From what I’ve seen when I visited the US, a lot of Americans could use the exercise.

But really, I think this importance attached to gun ownership is a sign of a horrible society. In a good society, this issue would be almost irrelevant (as it is where I live – in Toronto, one of the most multicultural cities on the planet). That Americans attach such importance to it means that their society is fundamentally ill and sick, and instead of trying to make it better, they just focus on being able to kill other people easily.

A view from across the pond:
In the US, guns are perceived as “necessary” by those who wish to protect themselves against others who are likely to have guns. Its merely equalising the odds and the deterrent factor. In Europe, many countries have much fewer guns, and more strict gun laws. Not surprisingly gun deaths are lower there. No guns, no gun deaths. Unless the US is prepared to change, they will just keep killing themselves with guns as opposed to other means. A successful society can exist without guns, but as the US currently stands, the option of owning a gun is necessary.

Not walk around with it, looking threatening to other people. Just have it available when you need to defend yourself. Not against a casual thief, but together with others, for your common survival.

Early in the Donbass war, there was an interview with Zakharchenko. I forget exactly what incident was the decision point for him. But he said, “that’s when I dug the gun out of my flower bed”.

Q: A gun?
A: well, a hunting rifle as well. And a box of bullets………..oh and one hand grenade.

Good thing he had two — a while later he had to go to the airport to rescue the first group in there, who were about to be surrounded, He took 6 people with him, including his wife.

Airport was a trap. A video leaked out, a good 6 or 7 months ago now, showing an SBU officer letting in the “rebels” using the lifts. This was advertised by Ukie media as a big betrayal by the SBU guy. But it was a trap – they were supposed to get surrounded and destroyed in there. A few flower-bed guns contributed to the trap failing.

Two things need to be brought to this discussion that are usually left out:

1-There are way too many people in the US on strange pharmaceuticals that have side effects of making one hallucinate, become violent, or other ridiculous things. In addition, the food and drink additives are almost criminal.

2-A lot of the “big” events are false flags, hoaxes, or some mix of the two. If you think 9/11 had a number of strange questions, then just spend some time looking into various events, such as the Boston Bombing. People need to get out of their trances on a lot of things, not just the phoney anti-Russian narrative. They are lying to us everywhere; it is part of their mindset or, if you prefer, spiritual world view. They believe that those who are hoodwinked are unfit to be considered to be human. Mere goyim, so to speak.

I heard that DPR is allowing any civilians that registers with the state to own fire arms. Perhaps it is just for soldier families and such but if Donbass was forced back into Ukraine it would be nice if it was the only regions were everyone could carry firearms..

They are fighting for “their land” or “self governance of their region.” I doubt hardly any of them have any concept of freedom which is why so many of them promote communist ideals (a good example was Mozgovoi).

the word *freedom* is totally misused and abused in the US. I think few people really consider “freedom” or even agree what “freedom” is.. To me it’s just a silly buzzword that stupid people use.
Most people in the world are too busy with items like the following than to ponder what “freedom” is:

This is just crazy. An attitude and culture of intolerance towards gun use and gun carry and recklesness with guns would help eliminate gun violence.

American attitudes towards guns seem to reflect years of gun crazy (and often entitlement crazy) where no rational argument towards a different culture seems possible. Ban this, ban that or don’t take away my freedoms and protection. The whole tone is a good cue to understand the culture is so used to being so unsafe and paranoid it’s best to move or best not to prod a stick at it. Like the crazy neighbor here and there who just so happen to idolize Americans and just so happen to exhibit the same kind of crazy behavior with guns, and trucks, and dogs. It makes no sense to compare the sanity of gun, truck and dog policies when all three are eagerly picked up by the crazies to better house and nurse and propagate their psychosis. Mind you they might never hurt you and in a bind might be very dependable if you happened to fall on their side, but does that mean we should not observe their psychosis and preoccupation with violence for what it clearly is? Win the war, lose the peace.

Makes about as much sense as American diplomacy in Europe, where you can’t really tell if they’re just completely crazy or completely disingenous, and for sanity have to look for outside reference. Keep a distance culturally, don’t accept the inevitability of becoming americanized, and let them know others from a different culture are not indifferent to losing the peace.

At the same time that the USA is militarizing its police force, the gummint is using a wave of false shootings (hoaxes) and manufactured violence through its mass media outlets as the means to introduce gun control.

The motive is to weaken any resistence in the case that the people decide to turn against their government. A government that has increasingly reduced peoples freedoms since it signed in the Patriot Act.

If you still can’t see the forest from the trees, there is a class war taking place across the globe. Western societies are being weakened due to deindustrialization, diminishing the middle class in size. The only resistance to the New World Order are the Russians, Chinese and the armed American citizen. War is being waged against all three states and has been ever since Rockefeller revealed to the world the elite’s plans…

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” David Rockefeller [June, 1991]

Want further proof? How about this spech by George Bush Snr… On September 11, 1990 at 9:09 PM, President George Herbert Walker Bush spoke before a joint session of Congress, regarding the Persian Gulf War. Among other topics, he stated that the war presented an opportunity for a “New World Order” to emerge. Eleven years later — to the day — the twin towers of the World Trade Center would fall, creating yet another “opportunity” to move… http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/bushsr.htm#.VYf2k8uljUI

One wonders why the police need these courses, why the need since the outbreak of the crisis and the emergence of 15M movement of citizen response, or why would need training in Israel, where the repressive techniques are not aimed precisely to avoid human casualties……

In case you could not see the video included in the article, try this one:

I have to agree with most of the criticism. I do support the 2nd as I understand it. I grew up with firearms and have them in my home currently. I am also old enough to remember when folks did not commonly train force on force, or have a fascination with military firearms and fear of victimization that can only be described as paranoid or maniacal – especially in an age of declining physical crime.

I am also old enough to remember when street level criminals had to resort to things like zip guns instead of recently manufactured autoloaders. The US has caused many of their own problems with massive uncontrolled movement of handguns on the black and grey market.This has driven a general feeling that one needs to be well armed or under the protection of an armed surrogate at all times to be free from fear. How is that freedom?

There is no limiting factor on gun availability and that is a failure of legislation, not a testament to the resourcefulness of criminals. The old “crooks will get guns anyway” is lame – some crooks will get guns anyway, and some won’t be able to afford them if there was less supply. Most recovered crime guns were never reported stolen, they never were stolen. There would be less than half the number of illegally circulating firearms if all of them had to be stolen from a lawful owner. Trafficking of firearms should make one an accessory/accomplice to any crimes committed with said firearm.

The average gun owning American has no intention of using that firearm against the government or in the service of a local militia. Just look at how effective the 2nd has been at preserving the rest of the B of R – utterly useless. The prevalence of firearms is used as an excuse for the militarization of domestic LE. As for all the crimes averted by firearm owners – I carried for over a decade daily and never had to draw my firearm. I know not a single person that ever had to do so either. I did have two personal friends that committed suicide by firearm, and have heard first hand accounts of many more from acquaintances, with only one instance of someone I personally know using a firearm to stop a burglary. Firearms are vipers, useful but deadly dangerous to anyone around them. There’s no guarantee of a net benefit when one chooses to arm themself. The choice to own or not own one shouldn’t be encouraged either way in my opinion, and the law should do more to prevent firearms from freely moving between individuals with no oversight.

The likely result of the heavy concentration of arms in America is liable not to be the preservation of democracy, but to be the suppression of democracy due to extra-legal political violence from the Right once the economy totally collapses.

Nice summary. agree 100%.
I remember hearing about this statistics: out of all the people killed by handguns in the US (it is in the region of 15-20K a year), at least about 1/3 are *suicides*. The reason for this is that handgun turn out to be the easiest way to commit suicide… many other methods are less deadly…

It’s a fairly obvious case of Warburg (sp.?) effect, otherwise known as “crazy people do what the TV tells them to”. Gun control won’t anything to fix it because even if all guns were magically taken away, TV will just start telling crazies to poison girl scout cookies or drive semi trucks through street festivals.

Technically speaking, the answer to all 3 of your questions is either “no”, or “we don’t know”. We know guns aren’t necessary for a functioning society, and we know they don’t cause problems either. Available data seems to indicate guns somewhat reduce crime, but increase number of suicides. Overall, no sane reasons for ban.

“The actual crime rates amongst those who has a “concealed carry license” in the United States is actually less than amongst teachers, law enforcement officers and even clergymen. Gun carriers (those with a CCL) are the single most law abiding social group.”

Logically this should be expected, since a clean record is a requirement for receiving a CCL. Those that break the law have their CCL taken away, a little more due process is required to fire a teacher or LEO that breaks the law. Nothing stops Clergy from having criminal records. Basically saying CCL holders are law abiding has about as much logical meaning as saying children tend to be young.

“9 out of 10 cases when a gun is used to stop/prevent a crime not a single shot is fired – just the display of the firearm is enough in 90% of the cases.”

This is a good argument for open carry as opposed to CC. CC is deceitful and generally unnecessary, open carry is a much more honest approach.

Logically this should be expected, since a clean record is a requirement for receiving a CCL.

Correct. But my point is that CCL almost never lose their licenses so this shows that once a person gets a CCL he/she is extremely law abiding. Hence, they are not the problem.

This is a good argument for open carry as opposed to CC.

The problem with that is that anti-gun ideologues freak out at the sight of a civilian carrying. That, and the fact that those who do not carry look like easy pray. CC has the advantage of not signalling to the criminal who is carrying and who is not.

But I am personally all for open carry, as long as the society is educated enough about it.

As an European I don’t buy your arguments. And I’m in fact planning buying a gun (after passing exams and getting a license).
But I won’t argue and ask you something: Did you notice that every time a gun control law is mentioned the arm sales in US go through the roof? And there is very little Obama can do in this regard. Arms dealers must love those massacres.

casska I guess I sound like a repititious bird singiing the same old song…but did you see that whole Bundy Ranch thing play out ? It was bizarre…an old rancher got half his herd killed by government officials because he wouldn’t pay the rent increase on neighboring land that had been his family’s grasslands for generations…then, his buddies came, the next time the gov officials paid a visit and his buddies all had guns…and the officials were poilte and respectable..like they’re supposed to be anyways,…it took GUNS to make them polite.

He was sort of OK until he said that he’s totally against lies on the topic, then proceeded to ladle out lies.

Just one example; the “80 percent” lie. The guy who made that up out of thin air, many years ago, was forced to issue a public retraction and did so, but it just keeps circulating among the ant-gunners, who do not seem to care the slightest bit about whether some criticism of firearms is true or not.

re: Guns in America. At least know how to use one since they are everywhere . And it would help if there were not so much untreated mental illness and malaise floating about so freely. IT Seems to be an alienated white male problem mostly as regards mass killings in public places. In Idaho a fellow tried to rob a bank in a small town and the guys on the street all pulled out their rifles from the back of their trucks and brought him down. Seems like that was a case where the community took care of business. This fellow in Charleston sat for an hour before he killed a particular set of people because he was 1. criminally insane 2. a racist. Seems as if the issue that can be addressed is the racism. Why, when we have “hate” speech which is reviled and shunned do we have the display of a “hate” flag i.e. the confederate flag which is so offensive to so many people.? That the killer had one on his bumper should have been a clue.

Agreed on this one. Most people can’t be bothered to read the Second Amendment or analyses of it. The purpose the Founding Fathers had was to allow the citizenry to have as a last resort the ability to rebel against a tyrannical government. They wanted the citizenry to be as well armed as any force sent to oppress them. Ben Franklin summed it up by his well known sayings: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what’s for dinner” and “Liberty is a well armed lamb disputing the result”. Certainly Frankiln and Jefferson were more interested in Liberty rather than Democracy, whatever that is (seems to be a very fast moving target in modern times). It’s also why they were completely opposed to standing armies in the US. There’s another useful saying: “Democracy is when the government fears the people. Tyranny is when the people fear the government”. I’ll leave you to judge which the US is. The problem in the US isn’t guns per se, but the constant promotion of aggression and violence in its culture, for the profit of a few large corps.

BTW, your statement that 30 trained military can defeat 1000 armed civilians didn’t seem to work out that way in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I’m with the people who are disappointed with this “analyses”. Of course Saker calls it a rant and thats just what it is, not really an analysis. So one has to cut him some slack. Now I’m not arguing that guns should be banned. Thats not the argument in America. As Obama said even additional gun control measures are politically impossible in the USA. Let alone banning guns.

Anyway a few points:
At one point Saker claims that politicians want to ban guns so they can have power over people and at another point he says that the NRA’s argument that people need guns to fight a tyrannical government (i.e politicians) is just silly propaganda. Which is it? Given the first claim by Saker then the NRA is not being silly.

A minor point about the cars, dogs and guns. Dog owners are not necessarily criminally liable for what their dogs do, because dogs, unlike guns and cars, are living creatures which can act of their own volition. Also cars and dogs are far less dangerous than guns. Cars kill many people but we use cars much more than we use guns. Also cars are far more useful than guns. SO society has every right to make an exception for one and not the other.

Which bring me to the argument that guns should be allowed because its the people not the guns that do the harm applies to all weapons from a thermonuclear bomb to a pen knife. One should therefore, in principle, acknowledge the right of individuals to keep and bear thermonuclear devices. If one denies this in principle then one cannot claim that there is any right to keep guns.

As to the claim that people who are for gun control just don’t understand guns, I suppose thats just emotion speaking. I’m surprised Saker has never met a gun control advocate who understands guns. Anyway there are plenty of them and many even own guns. There are many levels of gun control short of banning.

It maybe true that banning guns means that only the bad guys will have them. But so what? the bad guys already have guns. So now I’m in danger everyday from both the illegal gun owners and the legal gun owners. Every gun is legal at some point and legally owned guns are used in the commission of plenty of crimes. Just as in South Carolina. If guns were banned at least they would become the badge of the bad guy. You have a gun you are a bad guy. Clear cut. Again just to make a point not to argue for banning guns.

I have no idea where Saker gets his stats on how just “showing a gun” prevents a crime, but I’m sure there are many ways to be safe from crime without having to carry a gun with you around all the time or even most of the time. In other words a gun may be sufficient to stop a crime but it is not necessary. There may be other tools that society and individuals can employ to stop crimes that are equally successful.

Which brings me to the question of the “right of the people to bear arms” i.e the 2nd amendment to the US constitution. This constitutional right to bear is a particularly bogus argument within the context of the present day gun control debate. The US constitution provides a right to bear arms for the purpose of ensuring the security of the STATE not of the INDIVIDUAL. And certainly not for recreation, hunting or crime prevention. Besides that right to bear arms is given for the express purpose of maintaining a “well regulated” militia. Here is the wording of the 2nd amendment:“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Besides the framers of the constitution did not specify which arms the people could keep. Nor could they possibly have foreseen the range, power and destructiveness of today,s “arms”. Perhaps the solution is to let people keep and bear 18th century arms (or modern arms with 18th century design and performance capabilities). Keep in mind that in the framer’s day there was not even a standing army, would they have been so accepting of today’s weaponry in the hands of the people?

As for my own position, I would be happy to have guns completely banned (disclaimer: I maybe one of those people who don’t understand guns. Though I did have and shoot an air rifle, a BB gun, when growing up.) In the alternate, gun ownership should be severely restricted in terms of the types of guns, where they are sold and who can sell, buy or own them. I believe a person should have to show a need before they can own a gun. They should be required to undergo gun education and pass a test and this should be renewable every year. Gun owners should also have to purchase per gun liability insurance specifically for harm caused by their gun.

“I have no idea where Saker gets his stats on how just “showing a gun” prevents a crime, but I’m sure there are many ways to be safe from crime without having to carry a gun with you around all the time or even most of the time. In other words a gun may be sufficient to stop a crime but it is not necessary. There may be other tools that society and individuals can employ to stop crimes that are equally successful…..”

While being ‘steered’ by you tube O watched one of those Idiots in cars in Russia thingies.

There was a slight bump between two cars. the dash cam sae the youngish man get out of his car ranting and raving. there was some to and fro backchat. Then the young man opened his boot and got a baeball bat out and threateningly walked towards the offending car.
Into the view of the camera, came an older guy pointing a gun at him, where upon the young guy became very appologetic and laid down the bat and laid down of the road. The gunman kicked away the bat said something to the guy on the floor and got back in his car and drove away.

The South African government has made it almost impossible for citizens to legally possess guns. Withdrawing a citizens ability to protect themselves allows the anc regime to intimidate their opponents in any manner they choose. The American Empire are pushing for a color revolution in South Africa and I fear when it does happen more blood will flow.

This is the single best article you have ever written!! This is one of the very best essays in defense of the 2nd Amendment I have ever read. Maybe the best! You are a true American, citizenship or no citizenship. I am so proud to have you as a fellow American. Do not ever back down on your natural right to self defense. Where would Russian Ukrainians in Donbass be today without their caches of Soviet weapons with which to defend themselves from ukronazi thugs?

Those sovjet weapons would be stored in ukraine, if the west-ukranian thugs did not attack and kill east-ukranians.

Most weapons in the hand of the novorossians, are from troophies from the failed state/coup gov in Kiev attempts to kill and enslave the east-ukranians, under the west-ukranians puppet leaders (usa) orders.

During his speech at the International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg, the Greek PM, Alexis Tsipras, described clearly, already from the first lines, Greece’s new strategic dogma.

As Tsipras noted:

“Many of you may be wondering why I am here today and not in Brussels negotiating. However, I am here, exactly because I think that a country that wants to examine and explore possibilities for succeeding, must have a multidimensional policy and engage with countries that are currently playing a key role in global economic developments. […] While fully respecting our commitments as such, we will also actively seek to become a bridge of cooperation both in our region and beyond, with our traditional friends such as Russia, but also with new global and regional organizations. Of course, as you are all undoubtedly aware, we are currently in the middle of a storm. But we are a seafaring people, well-versed in weathering storms and unafraid of sailing in large seas, in new seas, in order to reach new and more secure ports.”

Saker, thank you for this post. I may say more once I’ve gone through more of the comments. If anything, I’m a little concerned with the limits you would place on the ownership of firearms. I don’t have a lot of faith in the mental health establishment. I see definite risk in psychiatric screening being used as a political tool, at the very least, or simply being used in an overzealous way (You have had thoughts about suicide? Congratulations, you are mentally ill!).

In an ideal society guns would not be necessary. But how many societies are there in which nobody has ever needed to protect himself/herself from assault?

This gun issue is like abortion and same sex marriage – something that the two parties are allowed to disagree on, because to the elites who run the country, the ultimate outcome of the debate simply doesn’t matter. They let the peasants fight over it. (if it was actually important to the elites, both parties would agree on it, just like they do on NSA spying, foreign wars, supporting big banks, putting more money into politics…)

Many Americans seem to have the misguided notion that they can give up ALL THEIR OTHER AMENDMENT RIGHTS to the government as long as they can still own guns, because then they can rebel if things get too bad.

This logic is ridiculous. The government has much better hardware than any ordinary Americans can dream of having. An armed US rebellion has no chance of succeeding, even if it could be started (which it can’t, because due to NSA spying, the government would know everything in advance).

Very true. I’ve pointed this out before, developed countries where private gun ownership is more restricted/less common tend to take it to the streets far more often than in the US.

They are also more willing to play smash-mouth with LE on a somewhat equal footing than here, where peaceful protesters might be shot point blank in the head with a can of tear gas.

As a sign of the times, anyone Left/Center that believes they will find common cause with armed Right groups should the government become “too” repressive – compare the Bundy standoff to any of the peaceful Occupy gatherings. LE and the existing power structure are far more likely to work with / encourage Right Wing militants than Left or Center. Look no further than Colombia or Honduras to see how the political environment might swing. Is tough to stand up for your rights with a firearm when a third of the population acts extra legally with impunity and LE acts overtly with impunity to collectively suppress dissent.

I still believe in exercising my second, but with resignation. Many of the arguments are overly simplistic, outright hollow, or downright fantasy.

As an Australian I disagree with your comments. After the Port Arthur massacre we didn’t ban gun ownership. Instead we banned automatic weapons and made it more difficult for people to own guns. It was the single greatest policy the Howard government enacted (see here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA) The US is obviously a different beast than Australia as far as gun culture goes, so as far as implementing tighter gun regulation, I think things are going to have to get a lot worse before the change comes. Like old mate from the monkey movies said… “from our cold dead hands!”

Second amendment was made to have a well regulated militia (police and military equivalent) to kill and enslave Indians, white slaves (Indentured servants) blacks, and women. This made-up law is derived from a manifest destiny mentality under the guise of protecting families from the devil worshipping savages, who are in the way of progress and the American right to turn the world into garbage. In other words, it is the codification of the military industrial complex that everyone talks about. Never had anything to do with resisting an oppressive regime and everything to do with being an opressor.

Now in America there is this thing called a firearm market that is confused with the right to bear arms (heavy weapons, etc). The consumers of this market think they have the freedom to ask the government for permission to have a firearm. They then have a firearm that they are statistically more likely to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else with, commit suicide with, or have stolen by criminals. They frequently have adolescent superhero fantasies about stopping “crime” (who cares about stopping robberies of big banks?) and have absolutely no problem and have in fact enabled to the American corporate state to ruin the world.

That’s the problem with the gun market consumer enthusiasts; they’re just so pathetically dishonest. You’ve already submitted to your corporate fascist regime, and you’re more likely to use your gun to serve the corporate regime than to attack you ractual oppressor (who cares about preventing bank robberies? You really care about BoA?) Just admit that you’re pacificied and harmless to be allowed to have guns in the first place, and only capable of shooting paper. Just admit you’re more likely to kill yourself with your own gun than actually do anything useful. Just admit that a gun is a weapon meant to destroy material or living things, and does nothing else. Oh well, the Americans were never known for being honest.

Ultimately, nobody cares about the Americans anymore. Let them kill themselves with their guns while they get robbed by the corporate government they voted for. Too bad saker is catching the disease. Sooner or later we’ll hear about another painful self inflicted injury or he’ll have to file a stolen weapons erport with the police at some point.

“The problem is not guns, dogs or cars. The problem is human nature and stupidity. Some humans are violent by nature, others have an addictive personality. Unless you live on a desert island, you have to accept that.”

Agreed, yes you do. One part of accepting that is not giving those people assault rifles. And unfortunately, it’s pretty much impossible to separate those people out from the rest of the population in advance. Yes, it’s unfortunate if that means they get to spoil the party for the rest of us, but it’s awfully selfish to say some creep’s ability to put the “mass” in mass murder is worth it if you get to indulge your fondness for concealed carry.

Incidentally, the US constitution was an amazing document a couple hundred years ago, but it’s gotten a tad bit long in the tooth. It remains an important historical document, but not so great as an actual working constitution. Nowadays, many other constitutions are better. Most other constitutions, for instance, have some reasonably serious stuff in them about equality; the US doesn’t even have equal rights for women, let alone blacks. The Canadian constitution is probably better than the American one today, although still certainly imperfect. And the Venezuelan constitution is way, way better.

It’s worth being aware that the US gun lobby, like most other US lobbies, is largely commercially funded. Hand weapon sales are very big business in the United States, and the businesses involved fund such groups as the NRA very handsomely. Those groups in turn invent the talking points you just listed off. You are, in short, being played. The current mania for gun ownership constitutes to a fair degree an invented mythology, like clan tartans and some other Scottish paraphernalia, but invented more for commercial purposes than for nation-building.

Incidentally, why does the right to bear arms always seem to happen in a white context? I mean, if a cop catches a black bearing arms, they don’t get any stinkin’ rights. Nobody ever says “Well, it was OK for that black male to have a gun because he owned it legally”. They just get shot. Come to think of it, even white lefty protesters don’t seem to have any right to bear arms. The results are less extreme if they have any, but they’ll still get the crap beaten out of them and used as an excuse to beat up and arrest the entire protest. The only people who can get away with weapons at a protest are nutbar Tea Partiers, which is to say the very people most likely to be dangerous with a weapon.

All that said, I’m not sure you realize that your proposal actually represents “gun control” by current American standards. That is, you appear to be calling for significantly more limits on who can own a gun than currently exist in most states, and for significant rules on safe gun storage so the kids don’t get whacked, which do not exist in many states.

Final note: Just for the record, if you’re one of those people who insists on carrying a concealed gun, you are not welcome in my home unless you check it at the door. And you can call me a phobic wimp all you want, but my house, my rules; you can be “not carrying a gun” or you can be “somewhere else”.
I suppose if you’re upset about it you can shoot me and come in anyway.

Saker’s point about a true phobia of guns motivating much of the emotion behind gun control activism is absolutely correct. Ultimately, it is a sign of the tremendous lack of virility in modern Western society.

A person who cannot defend himself cannot be free. Since humans do not have sharp teeth or claws, they generally need tools to defend themselves and current technology is such that guns are usually the optimal tools. The Second Amendment did not “make up” anything, it just wrote down what was already in the English common law and, before that, in the Germanic tribal freedoms. It only favored the slave-owner versus the runaway slave because the slaver-owner was better organized as the ruling element of any society always is (that is why they are ruling…). I think that is also the thrust behind Saker’s assertion that 30 well-trained soldiers can overcome 1000 armed civilians. It is correct if we are talking about a coherent platoon with a single commander and decent morale versus 1000 atomized individuals who happen to have guns. In that case, the platoon would just kill the most vocal of those 1000 and the rest would be cowed.

Some of the commentators have pointed out that the great masses of armed Americans seem unable to use their weapons to stem the erosion of their traditional liberties and insinuate that people only be wish to be armed to shoot private individuals for ill-founded reasons. The reality is that consumerism and egoism are such in the modern Western culture (which percolates into most other cultures, though not to the same degree) that the American oligarchy is relatively secure despite all the gun-owners it rules over. If most people cannot identify the causes of their political problems, then their arms will be of no of use in stemming those problems. In essence, Americans, like most people, have a “software” problem and one does not fix that software problem by taking away the requisite “hardware” as well even if that might make some delicate types feel better about themselves (since the contemporary culture is all about subjectively feeling good about yourself…).

Even if guns in the hands of most people are not useful for limiting oligarchic abuses, they are still useful for personal defense against petty criminal elements. The person who cannot wrap his mind around major historical trends about how his society has changed can usually still figure out that the police increasingly cannot be counted on to protect him. Violent crime will return as the easy credit and consumer fanatasies that pacified people in the 1980s and 1990s fail to stem the country’s economic decline and social fragmentation and the psychopathic tendencies promoted by that same consumerism cause many people to become violent to get what they want right away.

Thus the Purple library guy is certainly free to insist that all visitors to his home be unarmed. However, he will only be able to impose this rule on relatively civilized and well-meaning armed visitors who will temporarily give up their weapons for the sake of his friendship and hospitality. The first criminal element that shows up at his door will, as he remarks, just shoot his way in and will probably be able to shoot all of his recently disarmed visitors as well.

The Saker, Stumble across your posts! I enjoyed it w/some mixed views? But were human ( maybe lil better cause were communicating on problems that need attention! ). Hope you keep me posted / email list(?). Like to share some humor bout the civilized world! I use to tell people ! I plan to leave & get away from civilization. Back to the mtns & scary wilderness where I safe! I was going to build a place on top of a mtn. So I could look down at the civilized world to see what’s so civilized about it? The more I thought the more humor I found! Had to change plans & build in secluded/rural valley! Maybe be safer? Cause I’d get to laughing so hard at the people & their civilized ways! That I probably get laughing so hard.I’d fall down off that mtn & break my fool neck!! Take Care & keep me posted?

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.